Gamma-Hadron Separation Aous Abdo & James Linnemann Michigan State University Milagro Collaboration Meeting, UMD January 21-22, 2005.

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

Cygnus Paper Analysis & A 4 Properties Aous Abdo Michigan State University Milagro Collaboration Meeting LANL. December 18-19, 2006.

Advertisements

1 Calice ECAL Meeting UCL 8/06/09David Ward Thoughts on transverse energy profile for e/m showers David Ward  We have work from G.Mavromanolakis on this.

London Collaboration Meeting September 29, 2005 Search for a Diffuse Flux of Muon Neutrinos using AMANDA-II Data from Jessica Hodges University.

June 1, 2005Milagro Collaboration Meeting TPed Shifting and the Crab Curtis Lansdell University of Maryland.

Aoife Kilduff Rating Scale Research. Rating Scale Usage – 6 point Scale Both Frequency and Development scale rating usage are very similar. In these scales.

1 Using the pHE data to measure the beam e ’s from  + decay David Jaffe and Pedro Ochoa March 13 th 2007  Introduction  Antineutrino selection  Feasibility.

Selection: i) Used “basic cuts” described in my NuBarPID talk (slide 3). 74.4% of CC events pass this cut. ii) Used David’s PID cut at -0.2 to remove NC.

1 previously, when I calculated event selection efficiencies, I defined efficiencies as the following: efficiency in electron channel = (total number of.

Gus Sinnis HAWC Review December 2007 Milagro a TeV Gamma-Ray Observatory Gus Sinnis Los Alamos National Laboratory.

Update on NC/CC separation At the previous phone meeting I presented a method to separate NC/CC using simple cuts on reconstructed quantities available.

A Search for Point Sources of High Energy Neutrinos with AMANDA-B10 Scott Young, for the AMANDA collaboration UC-Irvine PhD Thesis:

Page 1 Calculating the Beam Position at the Ecal for DESY Run (Independent of Tracking) Hakan Yilmaz.

1 Beam e ’s from antineutrinos using the pME and LE beams David Jaffe, Pedro Ochoa December 8 th 2006  Part 1: Reminder and update  Part 2: Change in.

G. Cowan Lectures on Statistical Data Analysis 1 Statistical Data Analysis: Lecture 8 1Probability, Bayes’ theorem, random variables, pdfs 2Functions of.

HAWC Gus Sinnis VHE Workshop UCLA October, 2005 HAWC: A Next Generation Wide-Field VHE Gamma-Ray Telescope.

A Visit to Ghost Ranch Jim Linnemann Michigan State University & Los Alamos National Laboratory June 18, 2003.

880.P20 Winter 2006 Richard Kass 1 Confidence Intervals and Upper Limits Confidence intervals (CI) are related to confidence limits (CL). To calculate.

Current Status of Hadron Analysis Introduction Hadron PID by PHENIX-TOF  Current status of charged hadron PID  CGL and track projection point on TOF.

Optimizing DHCAL single particle energy resolution Lei Xia Argonne National Laboratory 1 LCWS 2013, Tokyo, Japan November , 2013.

Non-identified Two Particle Correlations from Run I Understanding drift chamber tracking – Tracker and candidatory – Two particle efficiencies/ghosts A.

Optimizing DHCAL single particle energy resolution Lei Xia 1 CALICE Meeting LAPP, Annecy, France September 9 – 11, 2013.

Outrigger Timing Calibration & Reconstruction Milagro – 11/17/03 Shoup – 1 Purpose: To incorporate outrigger hits in event angle fitting Additionally incorporated.

DHCAL - Resolution (S)DHCAL Meeting January 15, 2014 Lyon, France Burak Bilki, José Repond and Lei Xia Argonne National Laboratory.

Sung-Won Lee 1 Study of Hadronic W Decays in the Jets + MET Final LHC Kittikul Kovitanggoon * & Sung-Won Lee Texas Tech University Michael Weinberger.

Moriond 2001Jordan GoodmanMilagro Collaboration The Milagro Gamma Ray Observatory The Physics of Milagro Milagrito –Mrk 501 –GRB a Milagro –Description.

1 Top ID in tt → 6-Jet channel Erik Devetak Edinburgh Collaboration Meeting ( )‏

Monitoring of background events in 2010 run Giuseppe Zito 06/11/2015 PFG/MIG Topical meeting on beam background.

W JamboreeEric Lançon - ALEPH Week - January Jetset vs Herwig … Once more III Jetset vs Herwig on same selected events.

Gus Sinnis Asilomar Meeting 11/16/2003 The Next Generation All-Sky VHE Gamma-Ray Telescope.

Nuclear Fusion By: Yours Truly, Christie Osadchy, and The Fool Who Ripped His Pants.

HAWC Sensitivity Andrew Smith April 20-21,2007 Collaboration Meeting.

May 3rd, 2010Philippe Doublet (LAL) Hadronic interactions in the SiW ECAL (with the 2008 data) Philippe Doublet, Michele Faucci-Giannelli, Roman Pöschl,

Feb. 7, 2007First GLAST symposium1 Measuring the PSF and the energy resolution with the GLAST-LAT Calibration Unit Ph. Bruel on behalf of the beam test.

Data Analysis Markarian 421 – Crab Nebula – Crab Nebula –  2 dim plots : false source analysis  Miss-pointing study.

First Look at Data and MC Comparisons for Cedar and Birch ● Comparisons of physics quantities for CC events with permutations of Cedar, Birch, Data and.

Enhancing Low Energy Gammas in Milagro Jim Linnemann Michigan State University Nov 17, 2003.

A. Smith UMD, April 20-21, 2007 Milagro collaboration meeting The Hidden Potential of the “Gamma’’ Data. The Milagro Gamma-Hadron separation is bases on.

Optimization of  exclusion cut for the  + and  (1520) analysis Takashi Nakano Based on Draft version of Technical Note 42.

N. Saoulidou, Fermilab, MINOS Collaboration Meeting N. Saoulidou, Fermilab, ND/CC Parallel Session, MINOS Collaboration Meeting R1.18.

Kelli Hardy Compton Study from Experimental Data.

1 Introduction to Statistics − Day 4 Glen Cowan Lecture 1 Probability Random variables, probability densities, etc. Lecture 2 Brief catalogue of probability.

A Future All-Sky High Duty Cycle VHE Gamma Ray Detector Gus Sinnis/Los Alamos with A. Smith/UMd J. McEnery/GSFC.

1 Introduction to Statistics − Day 3 Glen Cowan Lecture 1 Probability Random variables, probability densities, etc. Brief catalogue of probability densities.

Comments on systematics of corrected MB distributions Karel Safarik (presented by A. Morsch) Meeting of the Minimum Bias and Underlying Event WG CERN,

Neutron Detection in JLab’s Hall B Michael Braverman Tel-Aviv University Data Mining Meeting, MIT, August 9th 2014 In Collaboration With : E. Piasetzky.

Figure of Merit for Exclusive vs Missing Proton Analyses D. Mack 2/12/15.

Aous Abdo Ground-based Gamma-ray Astronomy: Towards the Future. Santa Fe, NM May 11–12, 2006 Detection of Tev  -rays from the Cygnus Region with Milagro.

22 January 2009 David1 Look at dead material and fake MET in Jx samples mc08 10 TeV simulations, release J0 to J6 are tag s479_r586, ‘ideal geometry’

Introduction Active galactic nuclei (AGN) are among the most interesting sources of gamma-rays. At the highest energies, blazars are the most luminous.

Charged Particle Multiplicity, Michele Rosin U. WisconsinQCD Meeting May 13, M. Rosin, D. Kçira, and A. Savin University of Wisconsin L. Shcheglova.

Status Update on the Monte Carlo Simulation Vlasios Vasileiou April 20-21, 2007 Milagro Collaboration Meeting.

Event by Event Energy Estimation Algorithm and Determination of Spectra (Update) Branden T. Allen, MILAGRO Colaboration Meeting, May 2006.

Milagro at Tibet Gus Sinnis LANL/P-23. Challenge and Opportunity Milagro will run for ~2 more years (or less) No viable candidate to replace Milagro on.

Comparison of MC and data Abelardo Moralejo Padova.

Feb. 3, 2007IFC meeting1 Beam test report Ph. Bruel on behalf of the beam test working group Gamma-ray Large Area Space Telescope.

January 21, 2005Peter Rovegno and David Williams, Milagro Collaboration Meeting 1 Background Rejection using Angle Fit Quality Source analysis has an implicit.

Mark Dorman UCL/RAL MINOS ANL Meeting March 05 Dr. Quasi-Elastic (or... How I learned to stop worrying and love the Hough transform) Mark Dorman ● Update.

Gus Sinnis RICAP, Rome June 2007 The Milagro Observatory: Recent Results & Future Plans Gus Sinnis Los Alamos National Laboratory for the Milagro Collaboration.

Study of the Differential Luminosity Spectrum Measurement using Bhabha Events in 350GeV WANG Sicheng 王思丞 Supervisor: André Sailer.

32 nd ICRC –Beijing – August 11-18, 2011 Silvia Vernetto IFSI-INAF Torino, ITALY On behalf of the ARGO-YBJ collaboration Observation of MGRO J with.

By: Daniel Coelho Matthew Szydagis Robert Svoboda Improving Electron / Gamma Separation LBNE Software Fermilab, ILFebruary 1, 2013.

Erik Devetak Oxford University 18/09/2008

analisys: Systematics checks

A PID based approach for antineutrino selection

HAWC Science Survey of 2p sr up to 100 TeV energies Extended Sources

Unfolding atmospheric neutrino spectrum with IC9 data (second update)

AMANDA-II Point Source Search Results

2000 Diffuse Analysis Jessica Hodges, Gary Hill, Jodi Cooley

Charge diffusion model (again)

Presentation transcript:

Gamma-Hadron Separation Aous Abdo & James Linnemann Michigan State University Milagro Collaboration Meeting, UMD January 21-22, 2005

Distributions ➢ We studied different 2D distributions of the following parameters: ➢ nOut, nTop, nBot, nFit, nb2, nb4, nb8, mxPE, cxPE. ➢ Distributions were generated for Gamma and Proton MC. ➢ We concentrated on distributions that showed significance differences between these distributions.

1) ((nOut*nTop*nFit)/cxPE) vs (nb2/cxPE)

Q-Factor Distribution Events maybe on or off the pond Two dimensional Q-Factor for on and off the pond events Top view of the Q-Factor The peak is bounded by: (nOut*nFit*nTop)/cxPE > 10^4 and 3 < (nb2/cxPE) < 6

Q-Factor for on the pond events The Q-Factor peak is closer to the origin, so we expect to keep more gammas if we make a cut on that peak.

2) (nOut + nTop)*nFit/cxPE vs (nb2/cxPE)

Q-Factor Distribution Events maybe on or off the pond The peak is bounded by: 3500 < (nOut+nTop)*nFit/cxPE < 5500 and (nb2/cxPE) < 6

Q-Factor for on the pond events Again we see that the Q-Factor peak is closer to the origin, so we expect to keep more gammas if we make a cut on that peak. The peak is bounded by (nOut+nTop)*nFit/cxPE < 2000 and (nb2/cxPE) < 4

2) (nTop*nFit)/cxPE vs nb2 The offset of the two peaks is clear here. Gamma peak is bounded by: (nTop*nFit)/cxPE < 2000 and 10 < nb2 < 50 Protons peak is bounded by: (nTop*nFit)/cxPE < 800 and 20 < nb2 < 90

Q-Factor Distribution Events maybe on or off the pond The peak is not wide and smooth enough to be trusted, it could be due to fluctuations in the MC

Q-Factor with peak excluded We still see a smooth peak for which the Q-Factor is ~ 3.

Q-Factor for on the pond events We see a wider peak for which the Q-Factor ~ 1.8 The peak is bounded by 30 < nb2 < 160 and 800 < (nTop*nFit/cxPE) < 2000

Cuts For each distribution we did the following: ➢ Study the Q-Factor distributions and look for the cut that will optimize the Q-Factor. ➢ Energy dependence of the cut selected. ➢ The gamma and proton efficiencies for the cut. ➢ Looked at the Crab for each cut and compared it to the standard cut, i.e. nFit > 20 and X 2 > 2.5

Crab with the standard cut

1) Cuts for ((nOut*nTop*nFit)/cxPE) vs (nb2/cxPE) If we apply the following cuts: dAngle 80 & (nb2/cxPE) > 4.28 & (nOut*nTop*nFit)/cxPE > 10^5 We get a Q-Factor of 2.7 while keeping 15% of the gamma and 0.3% of the protons. The cut is high energy biased. ➢ Crab Significance increases to 5.05 ➢ Crab excess decreases to 382

2) On-pond events cuts for ((nOut*nTop*nFit)/cxPE) vs (nb2/cxPE) If we apply the following cuts: dAngle 80 & (nb2/cxPE) > 2.1 & (nOut*nTop*nFit)/cxPE > 3200 We get a Q-Factor of 1.4 while keeping 60% of the gamma and 18% of the protons. By comparing this cut to the previous one we expect a significance of 2.6, this agrees very well with what we got, namely 2.55

3) Cuts for ((nOut+nTop)*nFit/cxPE) vs (nb2/cxPE) If we apply the following cuts: dAngle 80 & (nb2/cxPE) > 4.0 & (nOut*nTop*nFit)/cxPE > 3800 We get a Q-Factor of 2.7 while keeping 15% of the gamma and 0.3% of the protons. Again the cut is high energy biased. By comparing this cut to the first one we expect a significance of 5.05, we got Crab excess decreased to 227.

4) On-pond events cuts for ((nOut+nTop)*nFit/cxPE) vs (nb2/cxPE) If we apply the following cuts: dAngle 80 & (nOut+nTop)*nFit/cxPE > 800 We get a Q-Factor of 1.4 while keeping 72% of the gamma and 26% of the protons. By comparing this cut to the previous one we expect a significance of 2.0 which is in exact agreement with what we got.

5) Cuts for (nTop*nFit/cxPE) vs nb2 If we apply the following cuts: dAngle 80 & (nTop*nFit)/cxPE > 4000 We get a Q-Factor of 2.66 while keeping 10% of the gamma and 0.1% of the protons. Again the cut is high energy biased. By comparing this cut to the first one we expect a significance of 4.9, which is in exact agreement with what we got. However the Crab excess decreases by almost one half.

6) On-pond events cuts for (nTop*nFit/cxPE) vs nb2 For this distribution we applied two sets of cuts: dAngle 80 & nb2 > 60 & nTop*nFit/cxPE > 1000 We get a Q-Factor of 1.57 while keeping 47% of the gamma and 8% of the protons. By comparing this cut to the previous one we expect a significance of 2.9, we got 2.34

Second set of cuts for on-pond events for (nTop*nFit/cxPE) vs nb2 If we apply: dAngle 80 & nb2 > 100 & nTop*nFit/cxPE > 1400 We get a Q-Factor of 1.68 while keeping 26% of the gamma and 2% of the protons. By comparing this cut to the cut for all events, cut #5, we expect a significance of 3.0, which is in good agreement with what we got, namely 2.8